EVIDENCE REVIEW QUESTIONS from EVIDENCE by BROUN & BLAKEY (1994) 1.

Professor John Barkai

Under the Federal Rules, the court may order the production of a document used by a witness prior to trial even if the document was not used at trial to refresh the recollection of the witness. Rule ; True ; False Why A lay witness may be permitted to testify that an individual looked tired on a particular occasion. Rule ; True ; False Why Under the Federal Rules, an expert witness may not testify to facts outside his or her own perceptions unless those facts are presented to the expert at trial in the form of a hypothetical question. Rule ; True ; False Why Under the Federal Rules, a witness could not be asked on cross-examination whether or not he or she was a relative of the party for whom the witness was testifying unless the question of their relationship had been raised on direct examination. Rule ; True ; False Why Under the Federal Rules, a witness may never be cross-examined with regard to his or her prior misconduct unless that misconduct has been the subject of a criminal conviction. Rule ; True ; False Why Defendant is charged with receiving stolen goods. During its case in chief, the prosecution will be permitted to introduce a witness who will testify that the defendant has a bad reputation in the community for honesty and integrity. Rule ; True ; False Why In the case referred to in the question above, during his case, the defendant will be permitted to introduce a witness who will testify that in his opinion the defendant is a person of good character. Rule ; True ; False Why In the same case, the prosecution, after having given notice of its intent to offer such evidence, will be permitted to introduce evidence of other unconnected instances in which defendant has knowingly received stolen property as evidence of defendant's knowledge that the property in question in this case was stolen. Rule ; True ; False Why Proof of a business's routine practices in mailing letters would be admissible as proof that a particular letter was handled in the same manner. Rule ; True ; False Why A letter bearing the signature "John Jones" on stationary bearing the "John Jones Corporation" letterhead will be admitted as a letter written by Jones without further authentication. Rule ; True ; False Why

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

In a prosecution for the sale of pornographic material to a minor, the prosecution need not introduce the original of the alleged pornographic photograph or account for its nonproduction because the "best-evidence rule" applies only to writings. Rule ; True ; False Why Words of offer and acceptance will be inadmissible to prove an oral contract because they are hearsay. Rule ; True ; False Why When a witness testifies that his friend told him that the defendant said that she had run the red light, the witness own testimony is admissible because the defendants statement is an admission of a party-opponent. Rule ; True ; False Why A witness states under oath in a deposition that the defendant killed the victim. At the trial in a federal court, the witness testifies that the defendant did not kill the victim. The witness' prior inconsistent statement is admissible to prove the truth of what it asserts. Rule ; True ; False Why A restaurant owner tells a friend that he is relieved that no one was poisoned by the contaminated food he served. This admission will not be admissible in plaintiffs suit against the owner for personal injuries arising out of food poisoning since the statement was not against the owners interest at the time he make it Rule ; True ; False Why In the federal courts, declarations against penal interest are admissible on behalf of criminal defendants only if there are corroborating circumstances. Rule ; True ; False Why At defendant's trial his attorney declines to cross-examine the prosecutor's witness. If the case is retried and this witness is unavailable, his testimony will be inadmissible because of the absence of cross-examination. Rule ; True ; False Why After being told that he is dying, decedent said, "I just want you to know I saw Jones rob the bank." At Jones' trial, this statement is admissible as a dying declaration. Rule ; True ; False Why

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

A woman shouts, "That man just stole my pocketbook!" This statement is inadmissible in court because it is hearsay. Rule ; True ; False Why Statements of existing physical condition are admissible only if made to a physician. Rule ; True ; False Why The declarant's statement that he intends to rob the store is admissible as evidence that he did rob the store. Rule ; True ; False Why Witness states that he once knew facts that he cannot remember now. When he is handed a writing recording these facts, he testifies that he thinks the facts are correct, but that he has never seen the writing before. The writing is admissible as past recollection recorded. Rule ; True ; False Why A police officer records in his report the statement of a bystander concerning an accident. This statement is clearly admissible as part of a business record. Rule ; True ; False Why An undercover investigator records his observations during an investigation of a counterfeiting operation. These records will be admissible against the participants at their criminal trials under the public records hearsay exception. Rule ; True ; False Why Under the Federal Rules, statements from a treatise are admissible as substantive evidences even if the expert did not rely on the treatise during direct examination. Rule ; True ; False Why At a cocktail party Smith tells Jones, an attorney whom Smith has never met before that he has been embezzling funds from his employer for five years. Jones tells Smith he'll be in trouble if he gets caught and walks away. At his trial, Smith has a privilege to prevent Jones from testifying about this conversation. Rule ; True ; False Why A presumption exists in a particular jurisdiction that a person who is absent from his or her home without explanation for seven years has died. In an action to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, a plaintiff introduces proof of his or her spouse s absence without explanation for seven years. Defendant introduces no proof to the contrary. The jury should be instructed that, if it believes plaintiff's evidence, It must find for the plaintiff on this issue. Rule ; True ; False Why

20. 21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.